OT: Terrorist attacks in Paris

[otwok]

What's your definition of major? Something that the major news networkcarries?

On November 21st, the New Army's People carried out a terrorist attack in the Philippines. In that same month, a Planned Parenthood in Colorado was attacked by Robert Lewis Dear. In December, the New Army's People carried out another terrorist attack in the Philippines. Earlier this year, there was a terrorist attack in India by the Maoist Communist Party of India. In Feb, CIRA conducted an attack in Dublin.

There is a lot of things going on in the world, if we limit ourselves we end up seeing tunnel vision.

None of these are MAJOR attacks. 10 or more dead people is a major attack.

New Army's People is a communist party/army which operates only in the Philippines. It's an insurgent group - nothing to do with terrorism. Same for the Indian Communists.

Civil War is not international terrorism.

It's semantics. The New Army's People is considered a Terrorist Group by both the US and EU and The Communist Party of India is listed as a Terrorist group by the Indian Government. Where they conduct acts is irrelevant. Terrorism by definition is the use of violence (typically on a civilian population) for religious or political purposes. Now you can change the definition to fit whatever world view you want but that is the definition of a terrorist act.

I am not into debating these things because it doesn't serve a purpose. Regardless of any attack, innocent people are being killed and we can call things whatever we want and blame a certain group for it but there are bigger systematic problems that cause this.

[kingkirk]

Ban his faith? Where are you making these things up?
Nobody is banning any faith. The only thing being banned is their ability to force their faith on others.

Who's forcing the Islamic faith on you, Tim Robbins?

The propaganda from **** clowns like Trump, or is someone coming to your home and asking you to convert to Islam?

Who's forcing the Islamic faith on anyone in the Western world?

[CBS7]

If statistics is the reason you claim this, is it rational and human to fear, say, blacks?

Not going to go there. I think I already explained why random violence is completely different than organized terrorism. If you think they are the same then we're done here.

What about gang violence? Those can be systematic. I'd be willing to state that statistics don't make Blacks look very good regarding gang violence.

[TimRobbins]

What is proposal here? Segregate the Muslim and the non Muslim world? Yeah that won't work. If these two "factions" have a problem with each other now, then separating them would just make them both susceptible to propaganda and probably result in a big war. Yeah no thanks.

I don't think "propaganda" is the problem facing the world right now. I think a slightly bigger problem is those people blowing themselves up in airports and train stations in an attempt to force their religion on the non-believers.

I fail to see how opening the gates to them does anything good for us.

[DarthDiggler69]

Its my understanding that they were at war when these were revealed, which makes this less scary and more of "hype our people up" think.

Q (61:9): "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist."

Its clearly not about war

But it was.

I don't claim to be an expert on this but Muhammad's Muslims co-existed with a few groups of non-Muslims. I believe they were taxed or something, but if they really were in "terrorize the infidels" mode 100% of the time, that wouldn't have been true.

The truth is they were at war because Mohammad could not convert the christians and jews so was out for genocide when he destroyed the arab pagan tribes and jewish tribe Banu Qurayza.

I studied Islam and fhe Quran because I have many muslim friends and argue all the time lol thats why I love this topic

[TimRobbins]

What about gang violence? Those can be systematic. I'd be willing to state that statistics don't make Blacks look very good regarding gang violence.

And fearing gangs is irrational? If I walk across somebody with gang tattoos should I not fear him? Has PC come to this?

[CBS7]

Q (61:9): "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist."

Its clearly not about war

But it was.

I don't claim to be an expert on this but Muhammad's Muslims co-existed with a few groups of non-Muslims. I believe they were taxed or something, but if they really were in "terrorize the infidels" mode 100% of the time, that wouldn't have been true.

The truth is they were at war because Mohammad was out for genocide when he destroyed the jewish tribe Banu Qurayza.

I studied Islam and fhe Quran because I have many muslim friends and argue all the time lol

They declared war on the jewish tribe for allying with Meccan tribes that were attacking Muhammad's Muslims during a battle. I don't believe that's a terrible reason.

[CBS7]

What about gang violence? Those can be systematic. I'd be willing to state that statistics don't make Blacks look very good regarding gang violence.

And fearing gangs is irrational? If I walk across somebody with gang tattoos should I not fear him? Has PC come to this?

Terrorism is done mostly by Muslims = fear Muslims
Gang violence is carried out mostly by Blacks = fear Blacks.

Seems the same deal to me.

[DarthDiggler69]

But it was.

I don't claim to be an expert on this but Muhammad's Muslims co-existed with a few groups of non-Muslims. I believe they were taxed or something, but if they really were in "terrorize the infidels" mode 100% of the time, that wouldn't have been true.

The truth is they were at war because Mohammad was out for genocide when he destroyed the jewish tribe Banu Qurayza.

I studied Islam and fhe Quran because I have many muslim friends and argue all the time lol

They declared war on the jewish tribe for allying with Meccan tribes that were attacking Muhammad's Muslims during a battle. I don't believe that's a terrible reason.

Mohammad attacked the Meccan tribes because they did not accept him, its in the Hadiths. Ah but whatever Ill read more tonight, sharpen my Islam

[TheSuzerain]

It is pretty irrational to fear Islamic terrorists in the US.

With the notable exception of 9/11, lightning strikes kill more Americans than Islamic terrorists.

Only a liar would say that he would go camping and not fear Radical Lightning. /TimRobbins

[TimRobbins]

Who's forcing the Islamic faith on you, Tim Robbins?

The propaganda from **** clowns like Trump, or is someone coming to your home and asking you to convert to Islam?

Who's forcing the Islamic faith on anyone in the Western world?

There are tens of Millions (if not hundreds of millions) of people on this earth who believe Islam and sharia law should be forced on all non-believers. Are you unaware of this?

So no, they are currently unable to come to my home and force me to convert or die, but there isn't a shortage of people who would like to do that if they could.

Who is forcing Islamic faith in the Western World? What do you think the attacks were about today? Have you heard of ISIS?

[TimRobbins]

Terrorism is done mostly by Muslims = fear Muslims
Gang violence is carried out mostly by Blacks = fear Blacks.

Seems the same deal to me.

Gang violence isn't done exclusively by blacks and you can pretty much avoid gang violence by staying out of certain areas.

[jmajew]

Banning all Muslims is an awful idea. What people need to realize is that America is a melting pot for all religions and ethnicities. In a lot of Europe Muslims are put into ghettos and treated like second class citizens. That is why they are more likely to be radicalized. In the US we are more accepting of other religions and ethnicities, that is what makes us America. We can't lose what makes us great.

We need to create policies and laws that protect American citizens, but we have to do that without changing the fabric of who we are.

At times of war you sometimes need to suspend "who you are". Safely and survival come first.

Agreed, I know in WWII we put Japanese in detention camps, I don't think we should do that now with Muslims though. We need policies and laws that will not allow suspected terrorists into our country. We need to help create ways to assimilate them to our culture, when allowed in. We can not hold them down economically like they have been in Europe.

If we stop allowing the non-radicalized Muslims in that will end up creating more radicalized Muslims in my opinion. Unfortunately, there is not an easy solution to this problem. I think our previous President was at one extreme and our current President is at the other end. We need to keep a military presence in the Middle East and throughout the world. That does not mean being on active missions. It means keeping a presence so the world knows we are always ready to protect ourselves.

The US has the unfortunate job of being the peace keepers in the world. That is why we spend so much on Defense every year compared to rest of the world. It is also why Europe has been able to move towards socialism; they spend next to nothing on their Militaries. We have protected them and help allow their way of life. As soon as we started to back away from that position the world has become an un-safer place. The Russians invaded Ukraine, ISIS was able to come to power, etc. The world needs us to be a Military power in order for everyone else to have the freedoms they so treasure.

That doesn't mean invaded Iraq, Syria, Vietnam, etc...it just means we need to strike fear into others and let them know we will defend our way of life.

[CBS7]

The truth is they were at war because Mohammad was out for genocide when he destroyed the jewish tribe Banu Qurayza.

I studied Islam and fhe Quran because I have many muslim friends and argue all the time lol

They declared war on the jewish tribe for allying with Meccan tribes that were attacking Muhammad's Muslims during a battle. I don't believe that's a terrible reason.

Mohammad attacked the Meccan tribes because they did not accept him, its in the Hadiths. Ah but whatever Ill read more tonight, sharpen my Islam

He was driven out of Mecca by them after the Muslims were oppressed, boycotted, beaten, tortured, and humiliated in Mecca.

The first three conflicts between the Meccan tribes and Muhammad's Muslims in Medina after he was driven out were Meccan's advancing on Medina, so it was the Muslims being defensive.

Although the second conflict, Muhammad sent a group to raid a Meccan caravan, and the advance on Medina was retaliation for that.

[TimRobbins]

It is pretty irrational to fear Islamic terrorists in the US.

With the notable exception of 9/11, lightning strikes kill more Americans than Islamic terrorists.

Only a liar would say that he would go camping and not fear Radical Lightning. /TimRobbins

And car accidents kill even more. That's not the way fear works.

You are right that thanks to the NSA and the small fraction of Muslims in the US population, attacks in the US are far less frequent. I can't see why anybody would want to change that.

[CBS7]

Terrorism is done mostly by Muslims = fear Muslims
Gang violence is carried out mostly by Blacks = fear Blacks.

Seems the same deal to me.

Gang violence isn't done exclusively by blacks and you can pretty much avoid gang violence by staying out of certain areas.

And we've come full circle - Terrorism isn't done exclusively by Muslims either - but you'll disagree because you'll put arbitrary restrictions on what a terrorist act is and who and who isn't considered a terrorist group.

Actually they aren't that arbitrary at all - if its a violent act by a Muslim, its a terrorist attack.

[Swarles Xavier]

What is proposal here? Segregate the Muslim and the non Muslim world? Yeah that won't work. If these two "factions" have a problem with each other now, then separating them would just make them both susceptible to propaganda and probably result in a big war. Yeah no thanks.

I don't think "propaganda" is the problem facing the world right now. I think a slightly bigger problem is those people blowing themselves up in airports and train stations in an attempt to force their religion on the non-believers.

I fail to see how opening the gates to them does anything good for us.

So what's the end result you're hoping for here? You know this conflict won't end with a closed gate policy. Hate would just propagate more and it's not like this policy would be 100% effective and might just result in escalation. Making a thicker wall would need a bigger bomb. And when that happens then it's war time again. You're setting up the world to burn.

[musiqsoulchild]

What is proposal here? Segregate the Muslim and the non Muslim world? Yeah that won't work. If these two "factions" have a problem with each other now, then separating them would just make them both susceptible to propaganda and probably result in a big war. Yeah no thanks.

In fact, thats ACTUALLY the birthing place of ISIS - US detention camps in Iraq for the most violent.

The US camps would house all of these radicalized or violent men together. And from there was born Baghdadi and ISIS.

Its exactly how you'd expect a parasite or a virus to form - create the conditions necessary for its birth and quick spread and before you know it --- you are looking at a massive illness.

[ChiCityHoops34]

It is pretty irrational to fear Islamic terrorists in the US.

With the notable exception of 9/11, lightning strikes kill more Americans than Islamic terrorists.

Only a liar would say that he would go camping and not fear Radical Lightning. /TimRobbins

And if the government could do something to help prevent deaths from lightning strikes I would say go for it.

[otwok]

The truth is they were at war because Mohammad was out for genocide when he destroyed the jewish tribe Banu Qurayza.

I studied Islam and fhe Quran because I have many muslim friends and argue all the time lol

They declared war on the jewish tribe for allying with Meccan tribes that were attacking Muhammad's Muslims during a battle. I don't believe that's a terrible reason.

Mohammad attacked the Meccan tribes because they did not accept him, its in the Hadiths. Ah but whatever Ill read more tonight, sharpen my Islam

Actually, there was also an embargo on the Muslims after they migrated to Medina. It is more than not accepting him. There was no violence while they were in Mecca, it was the Meccan group that started abusing the new Muslims which led to a small migration to Abyssinia and later Medina. There was then an embargo, and a caravan from the Meccans that were trading the belongings of the Muslims which led to the first war.

It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things because it is irrelevant to this discussion and the motivations of people. For every verse in any religious text someone posts or says about encouraging violence there is another two that preach peace. And even in those verses that encourage violence there typically is some context behind it. But again, there is a larger systematic problem aside from religion that encourages all violence.

I typically don't post in political threads because it doesn't serve any purpose. Innocent people are dying and we are here trying to debate on who's right and who's wrong. Irrelevant.